You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

1) Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time, the understanding of a course of processes in time, and forecasting;
2) Ni understand how things change and evolve over time and throughout history;
3) Ni is acutely aware of events that are occurring outside of the immediate perception of the moment, and sees events as part of a continuous flow;
4) Ni perceives the inevitability of future events and notices ties to the past.

No, this is not my definition.

It's not a definition. It's a behavioural profile. And it means anyone can "do" Ni.

It also doesn't say how Ni does these things, and therefore doesn't address issues like quality of forecast and substance of understanding.

Yeah if it's true, I have Ni too. On functions tests I always score highest on Ne, Ni, Fi, and Fe, not necessarily in that order, but Se is also high.

I relate to a lot of Ni descriptions.

But I'm way too....EXPRESSIVE!!!...OMG!!!...ATTENTIONWHOREALLC APS...to be INFJ. I've done some observation, and they seem to have a great deal of self-control, even the cool ones who have a dark edge that I can relate to. They also are less likely to confront people than I am.

*sigh*

ENFP or ISFP. Whatever.[

You are totally messing up what a cognitive function is; it isn't behaviour at all.

Ni does do things, but not behaviorally. It's a phenomena that's exclusive to cognition.

It's sad that people go about describing functions as though they were worldviews, philosophies, or outlooks on life. It's also sad that people describe them as dictators of behavior.

This is largely due to the conflation of temperament profiles with functions. It's bound to happen on a typology website, where people string different systems together to figure things.

Guys, if you're going to take this seriously, which i question marm is doing, I think you should work from the ground up and define "behavior", "cognition", and the whole nine yards. The way most people approach it here is from the top down to the ground, which is ass-backwards.

The difference between behavior and cognition is, ah.... in the question "Where did that come from?!"

One day you choose a miniskirt when everyone's used to seeing you in ankle length cat-lady tablecloths. "Where did that come from?" they ask days later, referring not to where you shop, but why you chose to change styles.

But we have to go deeper than motive if we're looking for cognitive styles. Not down to the origin of motive, but down further into the origin of your particular enduring perspectives and imperatives. What imperatives and perspectives a person has are endlessly changing, but frequently those changes can be observed to occur within a fairly fixed segment of the spectrum of all possible views and all possible requirements. Are their imperatives tied to feeling or thinking, usually? Are their perspectives mostly about the intangible or the tangible, usually?

Ni does do things, but not behaviorally. It's a phenomena that's exclusive to cognition.

It's sad that people go about describing functions as though they were worldviews, philosophies, or outlooks on life. It's also sad that people describe them as dictators of behavior.

This is largely due to the conflation of temperament profiles with functions. It's bound to happen on a typology website, where people string different systems together to figure things.

Guys, if you're going to take this seriously, which i question marm is doing, I think you should work from the ground up and define "behavior", "cognition", and the whole nine yards. The way most people approach it here is from the top down to the ground, which is ass-backwards.

This is not helpful, Tater tot.

Originally Posted by Kalach

Ni roofs on the tap dance.

The difference between behavior and cognition is, ah.... in the question "Where did that come from?!"

One day you choose a miniskirt when everyone's used to seeing you in ankle length cat-lady tablecloths. "Where did that come from?" they ask days later, referring not to where you shop, but why you chose to change styles.

But we have to go deeper than motive if we're looking for cognitive styles. Not down to the origin of motive, but down further into the origin of your particular enduring perspectives and imperatives. What imperatives and perspectives a person has are endlessly changing, but frequently those changes can be observed to occur within a fairly fixed segment of the spectrum of all possible views and all possible requirements. Are their imperatives tied to feeling or thinking, usually? Are their perspectives mostly about the intangible or the tangible, usually?

I've thought about it a lot, and reasoned it out for myself. Maybe I just don't think the way you think. Maybe I distrust the definitions and all the different theories as being too vague or too different to even make sense when put together. The fact that you're so certain that one theory is what is correct actually makes me suspicious of how much you're actually reasoning yourself.

I've thought about it a lot, and reasoned it out for myself. Maybe I just don't think the way you think. Maybe I distrust the definitions and all the different theories as being too vague or too different to even make sense when put together. The fact that you're so certain that one theory is what is correct actually makes me suspicious of how much you're actually reasoning yourself.

So you can stop being so angsty and attitude-y, son.

If you distrust the system, then why are you even striving to apply them to yourself in the first place?

I never said any particular theory was correct. Most make sense in their own right. The problem with your approach is that you're trying to mesh them together. A broad set of behaviors isn't compatible with a simple set of emotion or cognition. You're expecting someone to determine your MBTI type by witnessing your behavior online. The best way for you to determine your type is through self-evidence. Ask yourself what you prefer, making impersonal or personal decisions? Using abstract or concrete information? Occupying the inner world or outer world? etc, etc.